Looking for HDR-capable monitor resolution <4k...

[Madao]

As topic implies, F 4k. I can't afford topend dual gpus every few years, and almost all the HDR monitors I see are 4k (and/or not yet on the market!).
Upcoming monitor models are fine, I'm not likely going to order for 6 months anyway.

Specs I seek:
-HDR support in games (afaik only a couple exist atm)
-IPS (the new types that use a b+w+color panels stacked to exponentially increase static contrast ratio. Panasonic is supposedly making them, but haven't seen any models mentioned..)
(or quantum dot...isn't that ips anyway?)
-Resolution anywhere from 2560x1440 to 2560x1600
-Size of 27" to 34"
-G Sync greatly preferred, not mandatory
-Real static contrast at least 4000:1 (which should be a VERY low number for the new type IPS...)
-10 bit minimum (8+2 or true 10 bit)
-must have sRGB emulation mode available, must cover at least 98% of sRGB gamut/~94% DCI-P3
-I think at least 450 nits brightness is a fair minimum considering the hdr spec demands 1000...

 

[mnewsham]

The closest to what you're describing is the Dell S2718D

-HDR (though not TRUE HDR)
-IPS
-2560x1440p60Hz
-27"
-8 bit
-99% sRGB
-400 Nits brightness
-1000:1 contrast ratio
-$530-699

Nothing else has really been announced yet, this panel only just came out within the past few weeks.

 

[CakeMonster]

I would instantly buy a 30" 2560x1600 monitor with these specs and GSync. And that's saying something because I have a 5+yr old old Dell U3011 now.

While 4K is tempting, no 4K monitor yet deliver the specs I want, and the ones that come close are too small. And then there's the issue of gaming which is why I'd prefer a 1600p monitor for at least another 2 years. 1440p is where the action seems to be at the moment, but I really appreciate the added vertical resolution of 1600p for productivity reasons on desktop, and 1440p are typically smaller than 30" anyway....

 

[Madao]

found Eizo Unveils ColorEdge Prominence Monitor With Full HDR, DCI-4K

but resolution is pointlessly high...sigh.
I hope they make a 2k ver... no higher than 100PPI

 

[Headfoot]

you can always run a lower resolution for your game on a higher resolution monitor. Can't shoehorn in HDR though, you have to get something that actually hits that spec. Very few monitors do, mostly just TV's still.

Quantum dots btw are unrelated to panel type.

 

[Madao]

Only OLED truly meets hdr spec but oled sucks donkey balls. Guess I need to wait on that Panasonic high contrast ips tech.


...or for OLED to be cheap enough to compensate for the horrible uneven pixel aging.

 

[tential]

Only OLED truly meets hdr spec but oled sucks donkey balls. Guess I need to wait on that Panasonic high contrast ips tech.
...or for OLED to be cheap enough to compensate for the horrible uneven pixel aging.

Can you cite any known cases of uneven pixel aging that has happened today?

 

[Despoiler]

The closest to what you're describing is the Dell S2718D

-HDR (though not TRUE HDR)
-IPS
-2560x1440p60Hz
-27"
-8 bit
-99% sRGB
-400 Nits brightness
-1000:1 contrast ratio
-$530-699

Nothing else has really been announced yet, this panel only just came out within the past few weeks.

Literally nothing in the specs will support HDR. It's going to look like garbage trying to put an HDR signal through it. You will want at least 10 bit color (DCI-P3 is 25% bigger than sRGB), 1000 nits, and a much, much higher contrast ratio.

 

[mnewsham]

Literally nothing in the specs will support HDR. It's going to look like garbage trying to put an HDR signal through it. You will want at least 10 bit color (DCI-P3 is 25% bigger than sRGB), 1000 nits, and a much, much higher contrast ratio.

You see that part of my post in brackets?

(though not TRUE HDR)

yup I know

 

[Despoiler]

You see that part of my post in brackets?



yup I know

Does your post therefore meet the OP's requirements? No.

 

[mnewsham]

Does your post therefore meet the OP's requirements? No.

Ha, my post even mentions that.

The closest to what you're describing

Oh look, i specifically say in the FIRST line, nothing exists that hits what he wants. THE CLOSEST THING currently available (on april 14th) was the dell.

How about reading what I write instead of looking to correct someone.

 

[Madao]

Can you cite any known cases of uneven pixel aging that has happened today?

Looking up on it the absolute latest OLEDs are probably less spotty...but I've been very unimpressed with every phone OLED I've had (my Note 4 can't even display pure white evenly! that's not acceptable for photoshop work!) although the contrast has been good.

My biggest beef with OLED is the price, they 'cost' 3 times as much for large screens despite the manufacture cost being pretty close to an IPS at least for phone screens. For a phone that might fly, not for a $3000 desktop monitor that's literally going to be on for ~15 hours a day with a lot of static elements that could burn in.

 

[mnewsham]

at least for phone screens.

Alright, so samsung has been developing low cost small size OLED screens for their smartphones for a few years.

LG (and others) have been developing much larger OLED panels for televisions, the two panel types are not very similar at all besides the base tech.
What samsung does for their OLED panels is not something that LG could implement for their panels, it's totally different tech. Not to mention, smaller screen sizes allow for much smaller odds of their being an issue with the panel, when you panel size increase from a few inches (phone screens) up to potentially 120 inches or more for larger television displays, the chances of a manufacturing defect increases significantly, for larger panels they may produce 15-20 panels on the assembly line while only 1-2 actually are without defects to where they can be sold to a consumer.

This is why panel costs for larger OLEDs are so extreme, it's certainly not anywhere near as cheap as IPS for larger panel sizes.